Why workers aren't getting their fair share
The share of national income that goes to the workforce is falling, while corporate profits rise. That should be good for investors - but Merryn Somerset Web isn't so sure.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
Twice daily
MoneyWeek
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Four times a week
Look After My Bills
Sign up to our free money-saving newsletter, filled with the latest news and expert advice to help you find the best tips and deals for managing your bills. Start saving today!
I've written here before about the fall in the share of national income that goes to workers in the US and the UK, but a recent report from Capital Economics makes the point again.
In the 1980s around 70% of national income went to workers in the form of wages. By the 2000s that had fallen to 64%. Today in the US, according to Capital Economics, it is around 62%. That decline has been "almost exactly offset by a rise in the corporate profit share". Profits averaged about 8.6% of national income in the 1980s, 10.8% in the 2000s, and in the last few years have even risen as far as 14.3%. So what's it all about?
Andrew Smithers blames it largely on executive compensation which, alongside the collapse of labour's bargaining power, he says has skewed the priorities of management away from long-term corporate health and towards the short term profits that come with firing people or slashing their wages.
MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Capital points as well to globalisation. Obviously, cheap labour in the East has hit pay in the West. In 1997, total employment by US multinationals in developing Asia was equivalent to around 4% of US domestic manufacturing employment. Now it is 22%.
But there is a third reason for the shift: the rise of information technology, which has "helped to leverage the output from any combination of capital and labour inputs". However, the productivity gains from this have gone not to labour, but to capital.
That's a trend Capital sees continuing: "automation, ie the substitution of labour for newly developed IT capital, could prove to be the biggest driver of labour's income share in the next decade, threatening relatively well paid jobs in transport, information and finance". Other jobs may well replace those jobs in education, healthcare and leisure but on current trends, they won't be so well paid.
Capital points out rather brutally that this is all good for equities, in that the less labour gets, the more capital gets (in the form of rising corporate profits). But I'm not sure I would bet on it.
Smithers notes that if US profit margins are to return to their long-term mean (which almost everything does in the end) they have to halve. And as I note here, much of this kind of thing depends on what politicians end up doing.
Until relatively recently the massive redistribution of the proceeds of output were disguised by the credit bubble. They aren't any more. That means that unless the 'reshoring' trend somehow accelerates such that labour prices can rise in the US (this isn't impossible) we can expect the government to step in to help change the direction of redistribution.
-
Average UK house price reaches £300,000 for first time, Halifax saysWhile the average house price has topped £300k, regional disparities still remain, Halifax finds.
-
Barings Emerging Europe trust bounces back from Russia woesBarings Emerging Europe trust has added the Middle East and Africa to its mandate, delivering a strong recovery, says Max King
-
Beating inflation takes more luck than skill – but are we about to get lucky?Opinion The US Federal Reserve managed to beat inflation in the 1980s. But much of that was down to pure luck. Thankfully, says Merryn Somerset Webb, the Bank of England may be about to get lucky.
-
Rishi Sunak can’t fix all our problems – so why try?Opinion Rishi Sunak’s Spring Statement is an attempt to plaster over problems the chancellor can’t fix. So should he even bother trying, asks Merryn Somerset Webb?
-
Young people are becoming a scarce resource – we should value them more highlyOpinion In the last two years adults have been bizarrely unkind to children and young people. That doesn’t bode well for the future, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
Ask for a pay rise – everyone else isOpinion As inflation bites and the labour market remains tight, many of the nation's employees are asking for a pay rise. Merryn Somerset Webb explains why you should do that too.
-
Why central banks should stick to controlling inflationOpinion The world’s central bankers are stepping out of their traditional roles and becoming much more political. That’s a mistake, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
How St Ives became St Tropez as the recovery drives prices sky highOpinion Merryn Somerset Webb finds herself at the epicentre of Britain’s V-shaped recovery as pent-up demand flows straight into Cornwall’s restaurants and beaches.
-
The real problem of Universal Basic Income (UBI)Merryn's Blog April employment numbers showed 75 per cent fewer people in the US returned to employment compared to expectations. Merryn Somerset-Webb explains how excessive government support is causing a shortage of labour.
-
Why an ageing population is not necessarily the disaster many people think it isOpinion We’ve got used to the idea that an ageing population is a bad thing. But that’s not necessarily true, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
